Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Fact_Checker Date: Nov 8, 2010 2:20pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Does This Make Sense? / Devil Girl of Mars GATT status

The way that the GATT/URAA legislation added wording to the Copyright Act, it is unnecessary for there to have been a Notice of Intent to Enforce. The wording states that restored copyright occurs automatically; filing of an Intent merely puts others on notice.

The relevant passages:

104a · Copyright in restored works
(a) Automatic Protection and Term.—
(1) Term.—
(A) Copyright subsists, in accordance with this section, in restored works, and vests automatically on the date of restoration.

[...]

(b) Ownership of Restored Copyright.—A restored work vests initially in the author or initial rightholder of the work as determined by the law of the source country of the work.

--------------------

With regard to the claim made in this thread that a claim by Wade Williams is not binding because he is an American and thus not "the foreign filmmaker/copyright holder": take notice of the wording in (B) that "A restored work vests INITIALLY"--this suggests that although Williams could not be first in line for the rights, he could nonetheless be second in line, and scoop up the rights by licensing them from whomever was first in line. That's how I'm reading "initially."

Again (quoting from "(A)"), "Copyright subsists, in accordance with this section, in restored works, and vests automatically on the date of restoration." Even if no one filed, there would be GATT protection. Thus, even if Williams's filing is fraudulent (to know that, you would have to know his contractual and licensing arrangements with the British rights-holders--yet for all I know, Williams has legitimate claims), there can be a valid copyright apart from this.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)